TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was formed vide Deed of Partnership dated 1-10-1981 by five partners. The firm had purchased a piece of land on 18-9-1982 at Panvel. On 8-8-1984, one of the partners died. As the partnership deed did not contain any provision about the existence of partnership firm on the death of any of the partners, the firm stood dissolved on the death of a partner. By a deed of conveyance dated 1-4-1987, the erstwhile partners and legal heirs of the deceased partner of M/s. United Enterprises sold the said plot of land in their capacity as co-owners of the said plot of land. The profit on the sale of the land was disclosed by the co-owners as capital gain in their individual returns and was assessed accordingly. The Assessing Officer issued notice u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... development. Therefore, there was no presumption of forming of any AOP or BOI by the erstwhile partners. He also submitted that the notice under section 148 was issued on M/s. United Enterprises, the partnership firm, and, therefore, the completion of assessment in the hands of M/s. United Enterprises as Body of Individuals is bad in law and without any jurisdiction. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Associated Cement Steel Agencies [1984] 147 ITR 776 (Bom.). 3. The ld. DR. heavily relied upon the order of CIT(A). He stated that at page 5, para-4, the CIT(A) has discussed the issue at length and has come to the conclusion that the assessment in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred his share or interest in the net partnership assets to the group of successful bidders. Such transfer was not by any AOP. There was no coming together of the erstwhile partners. What really happened, if things were seen in proper perspective, was that each partner conveyed his share or interest in the erstwhile partnership firm to the successful bidders for price." The ld. D.R. could not point out any action having been taken by the erstwhile partners after the dissolution of the firm in the year 1984 so as to prove that they joined together in a common purpose or common action with the object of producing income. The erstwhile partners only sold the plot of land which was purchased by the erstwhile firm. In the above circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
